2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Absolutely right. That's a property-rights issue, and employees are contractually obligated to obey their employers' policies (or get a different job).

That said, these policies are driven by liability concerns and do nothing to increase one's safety at work. Someone disturbed enough to commit murder will hardly be constrained by a paragraph in an employee handbook.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I would argue that differing levels of consequence to public safety make a difference. If the law enforcement community, for instance, has reason to believe that make CHL info public might increase the probability of breaking and entering of homes containing firearms, with the potential for increased related crime, that's a legitimate argument for keeping that info private. This kind of public safety concern doesn't enter into the question of property values online.

It's always a cost/benefit analysis, of course. I just don't see the analysis in this case coming down on the side of making this info public.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

LOL You're lecturing a published academic literary critic and writer.

I'd say you've found your medium! :)

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

The phrase "ridiculous wannabe swagger" qualifies as name-calling.

That you used the phrase to characterize gun owners as a group, in an otherwise civil and polite discussion, indicates that you are bringing strong emotions and unfavorable stereotypes to that discussion. I will not call you "hysterical," but perhaps you can see a connection?

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Katja, you raise vitally important concerns, and I am utterly sympathetic to your concerns. However, I must argue that the oft-repeated claim that guns in the home are more likely to cause unwanted harm than to be used in self-defense has very dubious origins in the misinterpretation of a methodologically indefensible study. The prize-winning criminological work of Gary Kleck, a sociologist unconnected with any gun-rights groups, has cast an entirely different light on this question among professional academic sociologists.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I think Scott's tone speaks for itself. It's always interesting to note when a discussion devolves into name-calling.

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

A lot of assumptions here. I wish there were a little icon for "this post useless without solid statistics." ;)

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context

There seems to be a consensus among listeners. Who wants this information to be public, and why?

posted 4 years, 5 months ago
view in context